User talk:Archduk3/Archive 17
Link to future Rainsford article Archduk, when I restored links to the future Rainsford article on the Sonequa Martin-Green and Star Trek Discovery pages on December 15, I explained my reasoning in the edit summary: "Just anticipate the future and leave the link in place--it will be needed eventually, so it's better to have it already in place rather than having to track down every first occurrence of the name later." In other words, the red links are guaranteed to be only temporary. However, you immediately removed the links without bothering to offer any rationale. Please explain why you removed them. -- BlueResistance (talk) 17:50, January 3, 2017 (UTC) :Policy. We don't link to things that are from non-aired episodes. Things often change between announcement and actual airing. Shocking, I know. -- sulfur (talk) 18:17, January 3, 2017 (UTC) Reasonable--but would you be kind enough to provide me with a direct link to the policy? The closest I can find to this policy is about spoilers and not about links, but obviously this isn't about spoilers. I don't see anything obvious on the main policies and guidelines page, and I'd rather not have to hunt around for it. -- BlueResistance (talk) 23:27, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :Last paragraph of MA:SPOILER: ::Information about upcoming episodes and films, including information from released trailers or previews, may not be included in a Memory Alpha page, aside from official cast and production information released by Paramount, CBS, or credible news sources. Moreover, this information can only be added to pages told from a "real world" point of view, such as the articles for the episodes and films themselves; pages told from an in-universe perspective, such as the articles for ships or characters, cannot contain any information from a film or episode that has not yet been released. Spoilers that violate this policy may be deleted by any user. :I think that covers it pretty well. -- sulfur (talk) 01:54, January 29, 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. -- BlueResistance (talk) 01:00, January 31, 2017 (UTC) I'm learning See Talk:Incredible Tales of Scientific Wonder. :) --LauraCC (talk) 20:42, January 10, 2017 (UTC) See Memory Alpha:Category suggestions#Puppeteers. I posted the suggestion there initially, but it will be moved to the talk page of whatever page title ultimately is chosen. --LauraCC (talk) 20:09, January 18, 2017 (UTC) Any thoughts about my naming dilemma? (post them on the category page, please) --LauraCC (talk) 20:38, January 25, 2017 (UTC) Vision banner Just saw that. What do you think of a "holographic" banner for things, places, etc (such as Curtis Creek - the creek itself, not the program) which were only mentioned in the context of a hologram, or people who were mentioned as part of a hologram, but were never seen (like Jimmy Cuzzo.) --LauraCC (talk) 18:32, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :What's the point of the banners? - 18:36, January 13, 2017 (UTC) To indicate that these things only exist in-universe as a reference in a hologram, while not being a holographic image. We never saw Curtis Creek. --LauraCC (talk) 18:42, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :You answered a question I didn't ask, so maybe I wasn't clear. What's the point of the banners that we already use? - 18:47, January 13, 2017 (UTC) To distinguish between realities, as well as in-universe and real world. Isn't a holoprogram a kind of perceived reality? Side question: do people/things exclusive to Kataan get the vision banner, too? Some still can't decide whether these people really once existed or were just representations of typical people. (I know I've read the ambiguity of this somewhere on MA, can't recall where.) --LauraCC (talk) 18:51, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Is The Doctor's family from any less "real" than he is to the prime universe? Is The Doctor any less real than Data? How can you draw a line around things Data says about his past we never saw and say that's "true" but things a hologram says are "false" if we never see them? :Also, don't get ahead of the lesson, but maybe. - 19:00, January 13, 2017 (UTC) The line could be drawn at non-sentient holograms, I suppose. I was actually going to post the Kataan question first, but then I saw you had replied to my earlier question before I could click "save" (edit conflict avoided). --LauraCC (talk) 19:04, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Well, that doesn't really work either, since we know that anything said by a hologram in Bashir 62, excepting Vic of course, is period accurate, which means except for the fictional characters and locations, such as the lounge itself, everything is "real" to the in-universe 1962. Then again, everything that Vic says that isn't breaking the 1962 4th wall is also "true" too. Doesn't really seem like sentience has anything to do with it, so why would that be a good place to draw a line? - 19:15, January 13, 2017 (UTC) I guess. Suppose we could have a listing (category, or other method) for things which exist/happened (exclusively?) in Barash's fake life for Riker...--LauraCC (talk) 19:22, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :We already do, several in fact, and most, if not all of those things are already categorized as such. - 19:30, January 13, 2017 (UTC) I knew that but wondered if fictional things/people etc included in this simulation deserved a subcat/template/other thing, which would also include things which were portrayed fictionally here but were real elsewhere. Axanar, for instance; they're real but are part of this elaborate series of fictions... --LauraCC (talk) 19:35, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :So we're done with the banners then? - 19:39, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Mmhmm. --LauraCC (talk) 19:41, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Did you learn anything from this then? - 19:44, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Banners only apply to realities, not holographic things which may inhabit any number of realities. --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :That wasn't the lesson I was trying to teach, but I'll take it. The surface lesson I was going for is that holographic does not equal fiction, and while there is a good argument for a banner for things only referenced in fictional settings, one I would argue against, but still a good argument, there isn't a good argument for a holographic banner. If you had written down your first post and then thought about it before saving, at least one of the many problems with your suggestion should have become apparent, but you didn't. You didn't even think long enough to ask all the questions that were relevant. The real lesson I was going for is think, then do. :As for connecting everything from "Future Imperfect", there's already the episode page. If you really need to do it in-universe though, "Barash's first Riker holoprogram" and "Barash's second Riker holoprogram" are open, but I would expect there to be some resistance to those. - 20:08, January 13, 2017 (UTC) If I had thought about it all by myself, I might have resolved not to suggest any of that, but for all I know, someone might think of a reason that supports it that I didn't think of. I'm only one brain. :) How about "Barash's fantasies"? --LauraCC (talk) 20:12, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :You never need to try and think of things that support your point of view, you're already biased towards it anyway. An unchallenged point or though isn't even worth the time it takes to say or write, so the first person challenging anything you have to say should be you. The worst case scenario is you appear wise by saying nothing, and the best is that the quality of your thoughts and arguments improves, so there isn't really anything to lose except for a few seconds here and there. Also, "Barash's fantasies" is far and beyond worse than "Barash's Riker holoprograms". The only thing more needlessly suggestive would be "Charles Evans' fantasies". - 20:23, January 13, 2017 (UTC) I was trying to think of something that put all of his imaginary things together. "Imaginations" then. --LauraCC (talk) 20:25, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :If you have to try that hard, there isn't a natural grouping to be made, so don't try and force one. - 20:27, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Isn't there a difference between not having a name for something and not having a thing to name? --LauraCC (talk) 20:28, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Not for encyclopedias. - 20:32, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Request Hi Archduk3, I have request. Do you know this actor? --Matthew Bowyer Fan (talk) 12:33, January 26, 2017 (UTC) :I do not. Tom is generally the guy to ask about actor identification around here. - 12:38, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Well, earlier i gave him slightly worse photo, but he didn't knew him. Thanks! --Matthew Bowyer Fan (talk) 13:17, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for dealing with Ministry of Elders. But just so you'd know, I'd have been happy to have put in the work of moving the page myself, it's just that I needed an admin to make the namespace available. Next time, feel free to leave the boring part to me :) -- Capricorn (talk) 15:23, February 5, 2017 (UTC) Why did you revert my edits to Cardassian Guard and Military? The articles as I edited are consistent with the canon information from the episodes. The a naming pattern of Orders is the same in DS9 from usage to usage. It is clear that this is the case from the dialogue.Mindfire (talk) 10:23, February 9, 2017 (UTC) :Talk:Cardassian military#Cardassian Guard. - 10:31, February 9, 2017 (UTC) The Omega Directive Hi! Thank you for removing the duplicated image I inserted into The Omega Directive (episode). I had overlooked that it was already used as the key image for the episode page. I would have spotted it and removed it myself, eventually, but it's nice to see someone is keeping an eye on things. I'm puzzled by your reference to the "shitty wikia editor is garbage". Can you elaborate? Cheers! Captain Infinity (talk) 23:48, February 21, 2017 (UTC) :You're using the visual editor, which was made by wikia because they think new users are too stupid to figure out wiki text, and it introduces a whole bunch of bad formatting by default. - 03:07, February 22, 2017 (UTC) Ah, yes, thank you. I agree, and I usually prefer to edit the source directly, having become passably proficient in reading wiki code. But this was the first time I've tried adding and using an image here, so I opted for point-and-click. Thanks again. Cheers! Captain Infinity (talk) 05:14, February 22, 2017 (UTC) Request for feedback I'd be very grateful for your opinion on the current Featured Article nomination (Bajoran history). --36ophiuchi (talk) 14:07, February 25, 2017 (UTC) Recent move Hey Duke, I've noticed that you have moved a chunk of bginfo regarding the studio model of the Steamrunner-class to its respective movie studio model page place. No argument there, but I was wondering, would this chunk not better be served with a "Steamrunner class model"-page onto its own, especially since the model has never been used as anything else but the Steamrunner-class?--Sennim (talk) 12:30, February 26, 2017 (UTC) :Actually, the reason I moved that info is precisely because it was used for something other than the Steamrunner class, namely at least three United Earth ships in ENT. Granted, it doesn't seem that any modifications to the model were made, but unless we want to say this class has been around pretty much as long as Starfleet has been, the ENT ships have to be a different class. - 13:21, February 26, 2017 (UTC) Ah, I missed that reference...Good catch!--Sennim (talk) 13:30, February 26, 2017 (UTC) USS Franklin - 2233 Prime Timeline status date I noticed you undid my edit. Whilst I am not annoyed by this, since there are far more important things in the world, I thought I should suggest the edit be re-done. Now, i'm entirely aware that 2164 is the date that the USS Frankin disappeared in the past, but it stands to reason that, if the timelines diverged in 2233, and the Franklin was missing through that point going into the alternate timeline, it would also be missing in the prime timeline at that point. Wixelt (talk) 16:57, March 2, 2017 (UTC) :I'm guessing it's because 2164 is the date it officially had the status "missing" as of? (As opposed to any date in the future when that status still held). --LauraCC (talk) 17:04, March 2, 2017 (UTC) Makes sense, I guess. Wixelt (talk) 18:26, March 2, 2017 (UTC) Re: OMID Please see my question @ Template talk:Omid. --LauraCC (talk) 20:07, March 9, 2017 (UTC) Official definition of Star Trek canon? Hello Archduk3! Why doesn't the description of the Database on CBS own StarTrek.com website ("The official Star Trek canon") count to settle for a "official" definition of Star Trek canon? I see no reason to tip-toe around and state things like "general" definitions of Star Trek canon that pretty much boil down to "it's complicated" when, actually, it isn't - there is a official word on it. Why keep this ever tiring fan speculation going? --Angrytarg (talk) 11:40, March 22, 2017 (UTC) :MA CBS/Paramount as the arbiter of "canon" on site, and while the canon page isn't a policy or guideline page, it's close enough to one to cause problems if it doesn't agree with the policies and guidelines. :As for CBS/Parmount even deciding what is "canon", I've seen them change their minds enough in just my lifetime on this one subject to think they aren't really in a position to decide that. No one person there is in enough control over the franchise to be in a position to speak on all of it, so each statement released will be biased for whatever division they work for. The book people will say the books are canon, while the game people will say the same thing. Maybe one day there will be someone with enough authority over the franchise as a whole to make that call again, but we've only had two people like that in 50 years, and neither of them can make that call today. :Also, StarTrek.com isn't the best run site in the world, and since all other instances of "canon" were removed from the site years ago, this one may have just slipped through the cracks. That's good enough for Wikipedia, and we'll take the citation too for that matter, but the sitemap is a pretty obscure page to be authoritative in my personal opinion. - 17:50, March 22, 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. I understand your view, the only point I can really agree with is that the official StarTrek.com site seems a bit ill maintained, though. However, I personally see no reason to doubt CBS authority over the issue. They own the IP and they decide what is canon and right now the only official pointer is the sitemap. One can speculate it's an "oversight" but that's just this, specualtion. All past statements about canon made by CBS are in-line with the Database content, however. Mind you, I don't want to question MAs house rules, it's your site and your rules. I just don't think it is beneficial to artificially keep this ridiculous "canon is complicated" ball rolling due to personal preferences when there's an objective way to settle things. But again, thank you for your reply --Angrytarg (talk) 06:20, March 23, 2017 (UTC) Reversion of Edits Greetings Archduk3, I am Baron Joshua- I'd like to know what my mistake was in attempting to create a category for star ships of the 23rd century. I had created the category as their is presently no list of such ships and a category makes finding such craft easier. My motive is primarily research into star trek's 23rd century. :The primary reason can be found here: MA:CS. We have a particular process by which categories are agreed upon and created here on MA. -- sulfur (talk) 14:33, May 12, 2017 (UTC) Thank you for the response and information. I was unaware of the process but am aware of it now thanks to you. --Baron Joshua (talk) 18:57, May 12, 2017 (UTC) Review of revision changes Hello Archduk3, I'd like the staff to review the changed made to Starfleet - if MA wants to go by "in-universe lines" the current version of Starfleet's definition is faulty. My reasons for modifying the article in the first place can be read here - thank you very much --Angrytarg (talk) 07:51, May 13, 2017 (UTC) :I would clarify that we don't have "staff" here, and all edits can be reviewed by anyone. 31dot (talk) 08:12, May 13, 2017 (UTC) 24th Century Check the talk page before reverting please on 24th Century. Yoshiman__ 06:38, May 31, 2017 (UTC) :I know what I'm about, and I'll revert idiocy at my discretion. - 06:46, May 31, 2017 (UTC) Mysterious italics If the italics around the 2263 sentence are so arcane that it's easier to type "you 'assume' incorrectly" than provide even a brief explanation when reverting the correction I made in good faith, then a different solution is needed anyway. The reader is used to seeing either background notes or actual canon. What are the italics supposed to indicate, something that seems like canon but you're not sure? If so, then a background note is clearer anyway. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 07:37, June 19, 2017 (UTC) :First off, I'm an admin, and have tens of thousands of edits more than you, so your assumption that I somehow don't know what the hell I'm doing, and you somehow do, is insulting. Not to me, but to you. Either one of those facts should have tipped you off that something was wrong with your understanding of the MoS, not mine. You might remember the MoS as one of the links at the top of your talk page, so I shouldn't have to tell you to tell you to RTFM, that should have been something you did long before "correcting" me. Don't play the victim with me and go on about "good faith" when your well of it runneth dry. - 08:10, June 19, 2017 (UTC) I never assumed that you don't know what you're doing, but I was asking for an explanation of something that didn't look obvious to me and won't look obvious to a casual reader. My problem is that you couldn't even be bothered to type "see MoS" after two edits, let alone "brief alt. reality canon, see MoS". You deliberately chose to act mysterious. Is that how a friendly administator is supposed to act towards editors? I write full sentences in editing history when making a change that may not be clear (see the history of the Stardate article, for instance), but you're somehow above any explanation? Anyway, regardless of style, I also questioned on the talk page whether Romulan ale actually appeared in STB, which may sidestep the whole issue eventually. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 08:25, June 19, 2017 (UTC) :Not to keep correcting you, but I did mark my edits as being related to the MoS, you either missed it or didn't understand it. :As for the talk page post, since it started as this conversation in another location, and that's unnecessary duplication, I removed it. If you want to repost your question without the accusations this time, that would be fine. - 08:38, June 19, 2017 (UTC) No, I didn't make the connection that the "fm" note leads to MoS, which contains the idea that brief alternate reality canon should be marked in italics, and yes, I now reposted the question on the Talk page without the italics issue. The point is that even a brief "no, see MoS" would've put me on the right track after the first revert, but you chose to act like an oracle instead. Look at my latest edit on the Stardate page: I could've chosen to revert the stardate calculation and let the original editor figure out why I did it ("duh, the table contains stardates as datapoints, not calculations"), but I try to be helpful, so I explained once again that the purpose of the table was to collect stardate datapoints, and if the editor actually had a new source for their stardate (which isn't STB itself), they can add it with their own explanation. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 08:49, June 19, 2017 (UTC) Article type templates I had a question about templates. For example, on the Star Trek: Voyager page, I see the banner while the page is loaded but the banner disappears when the page finishes loaded. Is that the correct behavior or is the banner suppose to stay at the top of the article? Thanks, Janus100 (talk) 00:52, June 22, 2017 (UTC) :See here: Forum:New header implementation -- sulfur (talk) 01:23, June 22, 2017 (UTC) ::Everything still works fine in Monobook... :) -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:49, June 22, 2017 (UTC) Obviously required header Once again, thanks for your support, buddy. - Darth Duranium (talk) 05:39, October 3, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not your buddy, friend. - 05:48, October 3, 2017 (UTC) Unnecessary. No need for any of it. - Darth Duranium (talk) 06:54, October 3, 2017 (UTC) New episode of "Star Trek: Discovery". The new episode of is streaming right now, early like last week. I just thought I'd let you know, because I'm beginning to edit with new information. Roger Murtaugh (talk) 00:09, October 23, 2017 (UTC) :Provided you're in the US, per policy, that's cool. It streams when it streams. - 00:14, October 23, 2017 (UTC) Your opinion Hi, I heard, that someone from the MA/en finally got interested in our moving plans. First of all: I appreciate this commentary, even when it was negative. But I also want to clarify something: Over the past three months, I asked two other Admins to start a simular discussion or join ours. I also invited them (and so the MA/en) to be part of our project. But we never resceived an answer to my questions/invitations. To be precise: Nothing happend at all. Again: I appreciate your commentary and need to say, that this was my opinion too. Otherwise I wouldn't depend the whole project on the moving of the MA/en in the first place. But after we resceived no answers and our discussion got to a crucial point, we couldn't wait any longer. You can still talk to us, you can still write messages and you can still start an own discussion. We are waiting for the MA/en and your move. All options are possible and we hope, that you (and MA/en) will join us, to make our project stronger. To answer us: Send me a message or talk to Langweiler in Slack. I hope both MA communities can finally work together for an independend wiki. P.S: On Slack, you raised an objection about a certain "licencing" or a problem of this kind. Can you please specify this argument? --Phoenixclaw ~ Doctor Who Wiki - Memory Alpha (DE) 19:58, December 14, 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your statement. We agree with your position, that a unified MA has a better basis for bargaining than single language versions, but without any clear attitude towards the move we can't work together. I don't want to be harsh, but our plans have evolved and we don't want to make the whole work just to give you a jumpstart for your own move. We CAN give you information, but only after you have clarified your position and started a discussion on your own. It's a hard beginning for our future cooperation, but it's necessary that you also do your homework. --Phoenixclaw ~ Doctor Who Wiki - Memory Alpha (DE) 20:07, December 16, 2017 (UTC)